Originally Posted by Besoeker:
I didn't say it was impossible. Don't misrepresent my posts.

Did I say you said it was impossible ? No.
I said it, not you.

So don't talk a load of rubbish about me misrepresenting you.

You said:

Originally Posted by Besoeker:
"If you read the IPCC report, (I mean the report itself, not the executive summary), particularly the chapters on observations you'll see that it would have needed collusion on a significant scale to falsify the results."

So you were talking about deceit and I made a comment in response to it.
Yes ?
So don't try to spin the obviously basic fact that we are talking about deceit.

Originally Posted by Besoeker:
If you do find factual contradiction, I will apologise and/or retract as appropriate.

See above - your claim that I misrepresented you, when ironically you misrepresented me.

When I said "made up" I was referring to the quote "we came up with the idea that".
Ok I forgot the exact quote and I am not perfect.
Sometimes I confuse names too.
But as your comments show you are by no means perfect either (and I'm being most generous there)
And that doesn't mean my whole argument is not valid, and that you are not totally incorrect and misguided in your interpretation.

But most significantly, once again you've totally avoided the quote:

"The enemy then is humanity itself".

What are you afraid of Besoeker that you can't find any possible explanation to reply to this quote ?

You undeline the bits that you want as if that answers the simple question I asked.

You still haven't answered the question so please don't harp on about misrepresentation when you're using avoidance tactics.

In regard to the comment:

"All these dangers are caused by human intervention"

They are stated as "ideas"(not facts) that "would fit the bill"

And I suspect you have interpreted that:

"Only through changed attitudes and behavior"

refers to the need save the earth, when (in my opinion) it is referring to the use of propaganda to make self important brainwashed people believe such propaganda that "would fit the bill".

And you are a prime example of such an individual they are referring to.
[Rep]

No loss - quite a rude person overall.

Not 'tip toeing' towards the exit is he while the going is good and the domesayers philosopy is being unwound by many of those who are purported to have written it?

Maybe Clippo will be back again in 10 years time when the warming is supposed to pick up again in earnest.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
Did I say you said it was impossible ? No.

And I didn't claim that you had.
An own goal for your side.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
So you were talking about deceit and I made a comment in response to it.

Yes ?
So don't try to spin the obviously basic fact that we are talking about deceit.[/quote]
I wasn't.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
See above - your claim that I misrepresented you, when ironically you misrepresented me.

See above.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
But as your comments show you are by no means perfect either (and I'm being most generous there)

In no way would I claim that I am perfect. I'm an old fellow. One of the things I have learned to understand and appreciate is that the more you learn about something the more you learn the extent of what you don't know about it. But thank you for your kind generosity.
[quote=youcanhandlethetruth;528721]And that doesn't mean my whole argument is not valid, and that you are not totally incorrect and misguided in your interpretation.[quote]
I glad that you think I'm not totally incorrect. Maybe, in your invaluable estimation, Clippo isn't a "complete idiot" after all?

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
But most significantly, once again you've totally avoided the quote:
"The enemy then is humanity itself".
What are you afraid of Besoeker that you can't find any possible explanation to reply to this quote ?

Your spin makes it sound like I have deliberately evaded answering a mandatory question.
I should have thought that comment, taken in context, was a self-evident conclusion.
But, if a laboured explanation is required to aid comprehension.......
"All these dangers are caused by human intervention"
If humanity is the cause, what else would you blame?

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
In regard to the comment:
"All these dangers are caused by human intervention"
They are stated as "ideas"(not facts) that "would fit the bill"

Not so. They are stated as facts:
"are caused by" leaves no room for doubt.
The "idea" referred to using these facts as a means of uniting humanity.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
And I suspect you have interpreted that:
"Only through changed attitudes and behavior"
refers to the need save the earth, when (in my opinion) it is referring to the use of propaganda to make self important brainwashed people believe such propaganda that "would fit the bill".
And you are a prime example of such an individual they are referring to.

You can suspect what you like. I just read what the COR is reported to have said, not what think it was reported to have been said.
[Rep]

The following example is a prime example of what I'm talking about when I speak of your interpretation.

I said:

"And that doesn't mean my whole argument is not valid, and that you are not totally incorrect and misguided in your interpretation."

To which you replied:

"I glad that you think I'm not totally incorrect."

Need I say more ?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
Need I say more ?

I'd advise against it.
[Rep]

I don't need to :-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
I don't need to :-)

You most certainly don't.
[Rep]

You're right - people only need to read what you've said to see you've made yourself look completely ridiculous.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
You're right - people only need to read what you've said to see you've made yourself look completely ridiculous.

Fine.
Let the people read and comment.
[Rep]